User Profile: bonesiii

bonesiii

Member Since: October 14, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 20, 2014 at 2:22pm

    skunk, you’re misrepresenting what “circular reasoning” means. Please actually study real logic before you attempt to play logician — I mean no offense, but that’s a really extreme distortion. The Bible says these things would happen, and they did — that’s fulfilled prophecy (similar as well to hypothesis/confirmation in science), NOT circular reasoning. In fact this is the main thing that proves it has to be from God. To dismiss the sign that only God can explain it because it bears superficial similarities to a circle is just bizarre.

    Yes, in a sense, something “circular” is going on here; God, being outside of time, saw the future, so he inspired writings about it in the past, and then people who knew those writings went forward and saw it happen in their future. But it being circular here has NOTHING to do with a possibility that it could be reasonable faked! That’s like saying, if I draw a near perfect circle on paper, someone says, “You can’t say that a human drew that; if you did, that would be circular reasoning!” That’s… not… what “circular” in the fallacy name means…

  • April 20, 2014 at 2:12pm

    Er, skunk, the whole point of Paul’s 500 witnesses statement was that most of them were still alive at the time he was writing, so if he was lying, people would know it. Jesus’ resurrection is historical fact — that’s the bottom line. Where that leaves an atheist, if they don’t want to be in denial… I don’t know. But all attempts to explain it away are irrational. This has been dealt with exhaustively throughout the following history. Of course, if you just want to deny it on blind faith, go ahead, but really what’s the point? If it’s true, it’s the ultimate good news! (And I say it is!)

  • April 20, 2014 at 2:04pm

    Quran says the Trinity is Father, Son, and… Mary… So no, it isn’t Scripture… We’ve been over that.

  • April 20, 2014 at 2:01pm

    “Wonder where they got the idea to kill people of other faiths?”

    The illiteracy of anti-biblicists is astounding sometimes. Your OWN post debunks the implication here:

    “I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way”

    If you’re going to take something out of context, at least do it properly LOL.

  • April 20, 2014 at 1:56pm

    Um, Sirh?

    Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    It says he’d die. ;) The modern equivalent phrase would be “six feet under”.

  • April 20, 2014 at 12:59pm

    Also:

    There were tales of human flight before the alleged date of the Wright Brothers flight. Ergo, to use the antibiblicists’ logic, the Wrights must not have ever flown!!111!

    Responses (2) +
  • April 20, 2014 at 12:52pm

    “Moss argued that the idea of an individual rising from the dead really isn’t all that unique”

    Righto — it’s strongly implied as far back as Abraham that it’s believed possible. Although Genesis only hints at this, Hebrews reveals that he thought his son would come back from the dead during the sacrifice test. (It can be soundly deduced from his statement to his servants in Genesis).

    And it was definitely known as early as Elijah/Elisha. One obvious example:

    “And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:21)

    And there’s every reason to expect, of course, that Adam and Eve knew it soon after the Fall, or deduced it from God’s hint in the first Messianic prophecy at that time, or general knowledge of his omnipotence and Love.

  • April 20, 2014 at 7:02am

    You claim you don’t hate, yet you are quick to accuse anybody YOU disagree with of hate?

    Sounds like projection to me, rose…

    Although I believe that unfortunately some among us may very well hate. :( It’s a human mistake, not a mistake that only people who disagree with you make. (But the percentages seem clear — liberals hate much more than conservatives…)

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:57am

    Simple, rose, it’s hateful because 1) you don’t actually know if he’s a fraud or not, and 2) he’s a little kid, and you don’t treat kids that way. Period.

    And we don’t need to believe his story to know that. I don’t know whether to believe it or not, though I know heaven is real. In fact, the people disagreeing with you are -demonstrating- that they don’t believe anything anyone tells them… since you’re someone telling them something (the claim that the boy is a fraud).

    His being right or being a fraud are not the only options anyways; he might have had a dream and honestly believed that it was real (some of the details of the story are hard to reconcile with the idea that it’s false… but it could happen, and I believe in being very, very cautious with experiential claims — MANY clearly ARE false as they’re contradictory, but that doesn’t prove they’re ALL false).

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:47am

    en, how do you know what the facial features John saw looked like? And are you saying Jesus couldn’t “transfigure” like he did once as recorded in the gospels? He’s God. He can appear in any form he wants — and which form do you mean? John records TWO forms in Revelation, one as a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.

    Your next paragraph makes no sense — if kids find people with “hair issues” non-threatening, then yes, by definition God must know it, since he’s omniscient… (I’m not sure if kids do, but it would make sense.)

    And Isaiah doesn’t say what features he has in mind, nor do you know what people of the time would have considered majestic. This painting doesn’t seem very majestic anyways. And why in the world would you say that hair color or eye color are implied in that??

    (Not saying I buy the kid’s story. But if you disagree, disagree logically…)

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:38am

    Oh, and in the very same book, he’s also described as a lamb with seven horns (and eyes), etc. So… if you take Revelation’s description as the only appearance Jesus can have… which is it? Self-defeating argument…

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:36am

    Why exactly can’t Jesus “transfigure” between his normal human appearance and his heavenly (standard) form? He’s recorded as doing it during his earthly life in the gospels. And he’s God, so…

    (Not saying I buy that the kid saw him…)

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:34am

    ” Funny thing though, those without faith tend to have more hate filled rants than those that do have faith. Is it because you are afraid they have something you don’t have and you want to demean in order to justify your feelings?”

    I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head there. Their actions can’t be explained as rational. And I’ve had many of them try, too. They can’t.

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:31am

    LOL at the lack of trolls responding so far.

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:29am

    Wait — you’re basing this comment on a SUNTAN? But this was alleged to be a (match of a) sighting of Jesus in heaven… not under our sun.

    I’m not saying I buy the kid’s story, but if you’re going to give reasons to doubt it, make them logical…

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:17am

    Destroyer, pretty sure tanker was talking about the boy’s claims, not heaven. Also, you are in error about faith, at least biblical faith (though that’s accurate of the faith of atheists…). The Bible requires sound, evidenced faith. :)

  • April 20, 2014 at 6:03am

    Casmige, you’re talking about the future new heavens and earth, and the New Yerushaleam there, but forgetting the temporary heaven mentioned in Luke 16.

    Anyways, I agree with the recommendation of Alcorn’s book Heaven. VERY good book that covers all the major mentions of it in Scripture. :)

  • April 20, 2014 at 5:29am

    That’s a big “presumably”. Wouldn’t put it past them to send one of their own to do this just so they could get media attention and make us look bad.

    It could happen though.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 2:23am

    “natural law does not need a maker or justifier…it is an ecology that feeds, fuels and replicates itself.”

    How do you know it doesn’t need a maker? And by justifier, are you saying that rules of physics don’t need a CAUSE? That’s a denial of causality; hardly scientific.

    Yes, it IS an ecology that does those things… because of its cause. :) Saying what something is doesn’t answer what caused it and certainly doesn’t imply it could exist without a cause. If anything that just adds more that needs to be explained, and a Maker remains the only rational explanation.

  • April 18, 2014 at 2:16am

    This is really cool.

    WANT.

123 To page: Go